Talk:Joyce Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Unnamed contributor with IP 24.145.225.95 has essentially rewritten the article to favor the Joyce Foundation. The Criticisms section now does not have any criticism whatsoever !! I am going to revert the edits until they stay.Kevinp2 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have now reverted back to the version current on 00:51, 22 August 2006. Unnamed contributor is welcome to contribute as always :-) Please justify removing substantive information before removing it.Kevinp2 02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• IP 24.145.225.95 comes from Columbus, Ohio. Are you Saul Cornell? Looking at your contributions to the Second Amendment page, you keep referring to Saul Cornell's book. Please identify yourself; it makes the discussion more meaningful.

The purpose of wikipedia is not to present conspiracy theory, but solid research. Either present a fair and serious discussion of Joyce, or deal with gun lobby support and gun control support for new research and grass roots activity or accept that this will be a never ending edit war. Columbus Ohio is a city of a million people. Focus on issues not IPs24.145.225.95 12:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reverted back. I edited the Criticism section to be more balanced. There is nothing wrong with admitting who you are. Kevinp2 12:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• I added a controversy section to the Law Symposia section, with Pro and Con perspectives.Kevinp2 12:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• I restored the point about the Joyce Foundation's research supporting gun control and gun restrictions. Check the funding chart out.Kevinp2 16:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reverted back to include the link to DiscoverTheNetworks.org Please provide some specific information to show that their information about the Joyce Foundation is unreliable.

• • Discoverthenetworks.org is not a reliable source. It's not that they are specifically unreliable in this case, it's that they do not meet the requirements in WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • For one thing, Discoverthenetworks.org is just an external link, not a source. Also please point out the specific section in WP:RS that precludes them from being used as an external link. If it is because they are partisan, the the Joyce Foundation is obviously partisan about itself and we should remove the link to the Joyce Foundation too. If you are taking it upon yourself to remove all partisan links from Wikipedia, you have the rest of your life to spend doing it! Kevinp2 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Blogs 1.1 Request for mediation 2 Reverting vandalism 3 Point by point why this article is trash

[edit] Blogs

• This article was littered with blog sourced information. I have removed all of it. Blogs are not reliable sources - do not use them as such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You have deleted a large quantity of information by assuming and/or claiming that it came from blogs. I have reverted this back. Please make objections to or request citations for specific items, instead of making wholesale deletions Kevinp2 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am going to reproduce what I said on the discussion page of {WP:RS}:

I am very concerned that the Reliable Sources policy is an attempt to destroy what has made Wikipedia great - the involvement of tens of thousands of individuals outside the framework of the publishing industry. I particularly object to the near-blanket prohibition on using Internet sources. In particular, Hipocrite is going around deleting large sections of information that he thinks are sourced from blogs, without any effort to ascertain whether the information is correct or not, or even if they are actually sourced from a blog. This amount to a form of censorship of knowledge based upon the source. It appears that for the most part, only information published by the press, academicians or printed books or journals will be permitted and the rest of the human race will not be allowed to contribute to the terrific amount of knowledge that is being accumulated here on Wikipedia. I reject {WP:RS}'s ban on information from Internet sources and will not follow it. Kevinp2 14:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your concern is noted. Please note that WP:ATT is policy, and it required reliable sourcing. Regardless of your fears for the encyclopedia, it is how we work. If you don't like that blogs are not accpetable sources, there are other projects that allow them. If you state that you will not follow the policies of the encyclopedia, however, you will be blocked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT is a policy. However, [[WP:ATT] does not require the following of WP:RS and in fact does not even mention it or link to it. WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, and its own page mentions using "common sense". Again, I reiterate that wiping out information from Internet sources amounts to a form of censorship. Indeed, I created this entire article with the bulk of material sourced from the Joyce Foundation's own web site, so if we take this to its absurd conclusion, we should delete this article because the bulk of it is based upon an unreliable source. Kevinp2 14:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT#Reliable_sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I have caught you in a deletion without authority. Your link to the WP:ATT#Reliable_sources says:

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.
    Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material,
usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers,
and the papers and books they produce.

You deleted the entire section titled: Law review symposia controversies - Pro-Gun Rights Perspective which directly quotes Professor Randy Barnett of Boston University Law School, a noted academic in this field. This is a legitimate secondary source that you have deleted in your crusade against blogs. I am going to ask for moderation because you are enforcing a mere guideline to the point of vandalism accompanied by threats and warnings of being blocked.Kevinp2 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask for whatever you want. volokh.com is a blog that may very well fabricate or actually get quotes from academics. They are not a reliable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me! [Volokh.com] is a well known blog of law professors. If you have some specific evidence that they are unreliable or are fabricators, please present this to the world. Why are you on this kind of crusade? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinp2 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

No, it's not. No, I'm not. If whatever comment some guy wanted to write on his blog were at all notable, it would have been published in a reliable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

I have made a request for mediation. Kevinp2 19:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting vandalism

Have reverted a large deletion without discussion of the validity of each of the (many) references. Yaf 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, he called in his pov warrior friends. How cute. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point by point why this article is trash

"Its work in gun policy has drawn criticism from some pro-gun advocates," requires a citable advocate (not a blog) doing so.

"The focus of most of the funded research is on preventing gun violence." requires a citeable source stating that - feel free to quote their actual statements as opposed to what you think they said.

"Almost all of this research directly or indirectly supports gun control and additional restrictions on gun ownership" is origional research, and is certainly not supported by a list of grants.

"The Joyce Foundation also is a principal source of funding to many gun control organizations in the United States." is origional research, and is certainly not supported by a list of grants.

"most noteworthy of these is the Violence Policy Center" requires attribution - who says they are the most noteworthy and why?

"calls for an outright ban on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and substantial restrictions on gun owners" requires citation.

The "mind map" is pure OR.

The selected grantees are not balanced in any way - the are all Gun Violence, while it appears from my very brief view of their website that Gun Violence is only 1/7 of their grants.

The Research section suffers the same gun-centric problem, in addition to being wholey irrelevent to the foundation.

The Law Review Symposia section suffers the same problem as the Research section, in addition to having "The editor carefully solicits and chooses the articles to appear in the symposium," which requires citation, among a great deal of the rest of that section.

Law review symposia controversies - Pro-Gun Rights Perspective uses an unreliable source, and engages in OR - "One consequence of this unbalanced view is that it creates a perception by those who have only seen this symposium issue that there is only one scholarly perspective on this subject."

"Other academic publication support" is irrelevent, and one example is not acceptable to illustrate anything.

"Direct academic sponsorship" is the same as Other Academic...

"External links" to Donors Forum of Chicago Council on Foundations Foundation Center Philanthropy Roundtable Grantmakers for Education Environmental Grantmakers Grantmakers in the Arts Legal Community Against Violence -- Official website Arms and the Law Blog commentary DiscoverTheNetworks.org summary ActivistCash.com summary are all violations of WP:EL

Get started. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)